Good. In our PC culture it's unfashionable to point out how ballistically fucked up the behavior and choices made by people in those countries lead to famine, war, pestilence and death. One way to fix some of that is to reduce population pressure that drives them into areas that cannot sustain them. Giving them food ordinarily serves to sustain their crappy decision model (which is why I oppose all foreign food aid). It doesn't FORCE them to change.
So here's a hypothetical situation for you... The country of Boson was a small, imaginary South American country with several cities larger than 100,000 people.
In 1950, Boson had a predominately agrarian society which was able to provide adequate nutrition for most of its citizens. After a military coup, a military junta gained control of the country in 1955. Two years later, large oil reserves were discovered in the country. The government instituted exorbitant property taxes and seized the land from the farmers who were unable to pay the taxes. The government then sold the land to large multinational petroleum companies. The terms of the deal were highly profitable for the generals who negotiated it, but netted no significant returns for the national treasury or the citizens.
Farmers who lost their land went to cities in search of jobs, but few were able to find productive work. The corrupt government has since been replaced, but the nation now has billions in outstanding foreign debts. The government can no longer afford to feed its people, but the American government has threatened sanctions if the people of Boson nationalize the oil companies or attempt to take a larger cut of the oil revenues than was previously negotiated.
Oh, I forgot to mention that the US funded and armed the coup, the CIA assassinated opposition political leaders, and the American government sent economic advisors to Boson who advised the Boson government that this situation would create highly profitable industry in the country.
Are you saying that, in this situation, the US shouldn't provide food aid because it would be encouraging irresponsible behavior in Boson? Is there anything the US did which was wrong, or which the US can or should do differently?
Oh, I doubt they have much. I know they own some oil companies, and I'm aware of a few Japanese drilling companies, but no, it's probably not the go-to country.
As far as ethical business practices and a less corrupt business culture, though, Japan's great. Especially compared to Russia.
My point was really related to your suggestion of hiring a Russian company. They care even less about the environment and worker safety than American companies!
I wouldn't even hire any Americans at all to do it, as the executives and managers are all corrupt and cut corners, and the workers are all on meth (as seen in BP's disaster). Instead, I'd hire a Russian or Norwegian company to do it.
... You're going to go to Russia to avoid corruption?
As far as ethical construction companies with great workers, might I recommend Japan instead?
Google will know which sites it returned to a given search user. If the sites that are selected by the user are using Google Analytics, then Google will also know which sites the user's clicked on. Perhaps they will make this information available to site owners via Analytics?
That actually sounds like a potential future antitrust violation.
And why would they? Enforce copyright law -> send money to Hollywood, don't enforce copyright -> money stays home.
Also, China is a communist nation and even though they have adopted some capitalist ideals they still are a remnant of the Eastern Bloc.
The West needs to remember that China is a communist super power before trying to pressure capitalist ideals onto them, such as copyright enforcement, and expecting them to play along.
Correction, China is a half communist super power. They have two cats.
It seems most of the piracy is taking place in China's free market which is free of undue government regulation and interference. This free market has enabled unprecedented growth in China's capitalist society. Why are you trying to push for big government to interfere with the affairs of private entrepeneurs? Are you a Socialist?
Keep up that attitude, and we'll put it on a Pro-Herpes-Drug ad.
"Herpes. It's what's for dinner."
Yes, I know, way, way too far. -Taylor
Actually, not too far from the truth. Do a google image search for genital warts. You know all those spam sites that return "The Best ____" where ____ is whatever your search term was?:) Yeah, they're offering the Best Genital Warts, free shipping, etc. Google's improved their algorithms, but there used to be a ton of spam links in the first two pages of results.
And you accuse the government of not having a clue?
Your position is like saying that the WWII firebombing of Tokyo had no effect because fires occur regularly and buildings burn all the times.
1. This spill would not have happened had the well not been drilled. Period. 2. That oil could have ended up inside the mantle someday, or it could end up engulfed by the sun, but it would not be washing up on the Louisiana shore had it not been drilled. (in case you needed #1 to be reworded)
If oil were naturally leaking all over the world on a regular basis on a scale anywhere near that of this leak, as you claim, the human race would be extinct already. Bacteria eat more than just oil when they "use it for energy"--they use oxygen. There's a reason we call areas with really low O2 concentrations "Dead Zones".
If they actually proceeded knowingly with a broken BOP I don't think additional regulation would have prevented this. That's already criminal.
It's only criminal if they get caught and end up being punished for it. Good regulations generally try to prevent bad things from happening rather than simply punishing the responsible parties after the fact. The evidence is mounting that BP knew damned well the risks they were taking and pushed Trans Ocean to take risks they were uncomfortable with. An onboard inspector could have prevented that.
These extra costs would be reflected in the prices we pay at the pump...
Honestly, the US economy would benefit greatly from consistently seeing more of these costs in the prices paid at the pump.
There are some aspects of the Conservative point of view not shared by Democratic Liberals.
No, most of what you said is actually progressive policy. Let's examine piece-by-piece:
Things like you should pay attention in school and learn the skills that will make you valuable in the job market.
Shared by both, although Texas "Conservatives" feel it's important to rewrite history and indoctrinate youth...
That the government is not responsible for your happiness, success, or anything else other than to make sure you have an equal opportunity to succeed and if you are unable to provide for yourself, then make sure you don't starve or die for lack of medical care.
Actually, that's a progressive view. Conservatives don't necessarily think the government should be responsible for preventing starvation or providing basic medical care for the poor--they say charity should do that.
That the money you make belongs to you, not the government and that government should tax only what it needs, not what it wants in an attempt to create a Utopia that will ultimately and inevitably fail.
Now that it's been a few hours to your post, doesn't the last part of that sentence sound absurd to you? Conservatives are all for taxation, they feel the middle and lower classes should have to pay more in taxes. That's why they're always complaining about the "freeloaders" who don't pay any taxes. It was all over the news around April 15th. Both camps view taxation as legitimate. Democrats favor progressive tax schemes while conservatives generally favor regressive ones.
That schools should teach, not indoctrinate. That if you choose, and can afford it, you can put their children in private schools or even educate yourself without a Teacher's Union representative trying to have you arrested.
See: Texas. I posit that it's impossible to teach without indoctrinating, but I'm curious to see more about the curious case of a parent who was arrested for homeschooling. I'll give conservatives the benefit of the doubt and call this "Shared".
That people who can't afford a home loan really shouldn't be given one.
Right. Progressives agree that people shouldn't be given loans they can't afford, but they generally feel regulations should be in place to ensure that banks won't do it. Conservatives feel that "all regulations are bad" and that banks should be allowed to loan to whomever they want... even if it leads to the banks going bankrupt. And conservatives were behind the initial bail-outs, so don't even try to go there.
So of your "conservative" view points, one was entirely progressive, two are shared by conservatives in theory (but not in practice), and the rest are shared with differing views on implementation strategy.
But there is a big difference. I'd like to think that humanity as a global race has changed and become much more enlightened over the years. This isn't the 1400s anymore, things have changed.
We haven't. The race is the same as it always was, perhaps slightly evolved, but more or less the same. It's society (and our culture) that has evolved. If something really shocks your society, you'll see a good chunk of humans going back to being uncivilized assholes. Take away flooding for a couple days, food, etc., and you'll be amazed how quickly it happens. Hell, a lot of people just need a little alcohol to let loose.
We've realized things through the aid of science and exploration that humans with different beliefs are equally human and that the most prosperous countries are that with a diverse religious population.
You prove my point.
Language and transmission speed hindrances are now nearly gone, I don't have to rely on Marco Polo's journals to tell me what life is like in the far east, I can easily go to a Chinese website, open up Google translate and have a good idea of what its saying in an instant.
If you grew up in a slightly different community, you wouldn't give a damn about what's going on in China. All you'd know is that they're a bunch of infidels who are out to get you. For many people, the world is still black and white.
Things need no longer be exaggerated to help fuel a cause...
Alternative: no copyrights. There you go: no government intervention in the free market. Simples. Oh, what was that? You WANT government involved? Well why don't you make up your mind???
Can't we have both? I mean, current copyright law is absurd. Let's just make it 10 or 20 years from the date of creation (or publication)... and require (as I think is somewhat the case now) a copy of all copyrighted works to be sent to the LOC for the copyright to be valid. Government should continue to house as much of the historical and cultural record as possible (they're the only reason we have most of our Civil War photos) and private citizens and organizations can amass their own libraries. It's a win for everyone (except Disney).
First I'll apologize for getting so snarky in my initial reply. I don't usually do that, but I've been busy lately and perhaps quicker to snap at people online than I should be. Re-reading it a couple days later it does come across harsher than I intended. Now back to the discussion.
I personally do not believe you have any understanding of the scientific method. How many peer-reviewed scientific papers have you published? Because I've got over a dozen.
I'm not used to seeing paper count as the e-peen measurement around here, and I have no intention of starting now. I'll concede that even if you're lying and have published zero papers with zero impact, your zero will trump my null answer. I'd also like to assert that you could have so many awards that you use your Nobel as a paperweight. Either way, I'll grant that you may have credibility and go back to trying to figure out what you're arguing.
I think we may be miscommunicating (sic says Mr. Spellcheck), so I'll rephrase my original reply to you.
Again, what you said:
How can you completely prove AGW using the scientific method? You can't stick the earth in a test tube. You cannot perform repeatable experiments with controlled variables. Thus you can only prove sub-components of AGW that may support the *theory* of AGW.
That comes off as an attack on AGW because "the theory cannot be proven". It's a frequent criticism on Slashdot, the blogosphere, and the public in general. I've heard the same arguments against Evolution my whole life, and I tend to react harshly when I hear them.
So I'll ask again. Are you criticizing AGW/Climate Change by saying that it cannot be proven? Do you consider this a flaw in this/these theories, or any other theories? You seem to go on to make the same argument I was originally getting at when you try to school me on theories vs. facts, so I can only hope we were miscommunicating.
What I am referring to is "scientific fact". A scientific fact can be verified with a controlled experiment. As quoted in wikipedia (which obviously should not be taken as factual): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact
Hmph. Now you've got me sounding like the weird one. I'd argue that you prove facts with the empirical rather than scientific method, but I think we're generally in agreement on this point. I should have said you "don't prove theories with the scientific method". Which you obviously agree with, which leads me back to the original complaint...
What are you driving at when you say you can't prove AGW? That complaint is usually followed by "you can't _scientifically prove_ it therefore we shouldn't do anything about it".
The answer is that Google's OpenID implementation is totally jacked up. There's really nothing wrong with OpenID itself, Google just puts more emphasis on making people click the "Sign in with Google" button and couldn't care about following the protocol.
I recommend myOpenID as an OpenID provider. They'll give you a valid URL. OpenID URLs should be in the form of username.example.com or example.com/username
You can only perform "natural" or "quasi-experiments".
That's completely irrelevant to my point. You said:
How can you completely prove AGW using the scientific method?
I said:
...please explain to us how we can completely prove anything using the scientific method.
The point is that you CAN'T prove anything with the scientific method because there are no proofs in the scientific method. Really, you're looking in the wrong place if you expect proofs.
When you demand that the scientific method "prove" something, you're just demonstrating that you have no understanding of the method. Sorry, your credibility on the subject is shot until you can demonstrate otherwise.
How can you completely prove AGW using the scientific method? You can't stick the earth in a test tube. You cannot perform repeatable experiments with controlled variables. Thus you can only prove sub-components of AGW that may support the *theory* of AGW.
Since you're so knowledgeable about the scientific method, please explain to us how we can completely prove anything using the scientific method.
Speaking only for myself, my skepticism stems from an apparent lack of transparency of the data, evidence of cherry picking data to meet an agenda, a lack of transparency of the algorithms used to massage the data, and the tell-tale vitriol spewed toward anyone who questions the above.
While I agree overall and wish things were more open, it's very important to take that in context. FoIA requests are being used as weapons. Anyone working anywhere near climate science is on the defensive precisely because they have such powerful attacks come in from all directions. It's really no surprise that people are sick of answering the same questions, disproving the same lies, etc.
The only problems I've noticed with the CRU stuff are the same problems I see in every other scientific field: 1) most scientists aren't good programmers and 2) most scientists aren't good statisticians.
There. I said it. Sorry, but the guy who self-taught coding during grad school probably doesn't have the skills needed to consistently and reliably code some of this stuff. Ditto for scientists who don't have at least a BA/BS in math.
You do realize that there is a large population of people who don't support the idea of climate change?
You do realize that there is a large population of people who don't support the idea of evolution?
I really hope Mr. Cuccinelli goes after those fraudster evolutionists next!
And if its not able to stand up against political pressure, those people Will Never be coerced.
This is a combination witch hunt/publicity stunt. This isn't some legitimate investigation and the people investigating Mann will not be allowed to be coerced.
Do you really, really think that somebody who owns a Hasselblad is going to drop $14k on it just because digital is the new hotness?
Yes. Because a working pro has no use for a kluge like this, they all own modern DSLRs. The only people who will buy this are the people who want to be seen holding a Hassy when they put the Leica down.
Right, because there's no place in professional photography for medium and large format cameras?
DSLRs dominate a good portion of the market, but there are certainly a lot of pros who feel the larger formats have significant benefits.
I think you're confusing the D2X with something else. The Coolpix 5700 is a 5MP prosumer fixed lens camera from 2002. The D2X is the former flagship Nikon dSLR (2005). It has a 12MP, full-frame sensor, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
Good. In our PC culture it's unfashionable to point out how ballistically fucked up the behavior and choices made by people in those countries lead to famine, war, pestilence and death. One way to fix some of that is to reduce population pressure that drives them into areas that cannot sustain them.
Giving them food ordinarily serves to sustain their crappy decision model (which is why I oppose all foreign food aid). It doesn't FORCE them to change.
So here's a hypothetical situation for you... The country of Boson was a small, imaginary South American country with several cities larger than 100,000 people.
In 1950, Boson had a predominately agrarian society which was able to provide adequate nutrition for most of its citizens. After a military coup, a military junta gained control of the country in 1955. Two years later, large oil reserves were discovered in the country. The government instituted exorbitant property taxes and seized the land from the farmers who were unable to pay the taxes. The government then sold the land to large multinational petroleum companies. The terms of the deal were highly profitable for the generals who negotiated it, but netted no significant returns for the national treasury or the citizens.
Farmers who lost their land went to cities in search of jobs, but few were able to find productive work. The corrupt government has since been replaced, but the nation now has billions in outstanding foreign debts. The government can no longer afford to feed its people, but the American government has threatened sanctions if the people of Boson nationalize the oil companies or attempt to take a larger cut of the oil revenues than was previously negotiated.
Oh, I forgot to mention that the US funded and armed the coup, the CIA assassinated opposition political leaders, and the American government sent economic advisors to Boson who advised the Boson government that this situation would create highly profitable industry in the country.
Are you saying that, in this situation, the US shouldn't provide food aid because it would be encouraging irresponsible behavior in Boson? Is there anything the US did which was wrong, or which the US can or should do differently?
yah man thay shudnt' call us unmature just cause we don't spell good.
Oh, I doubt they have much. I know they own some oil companies, and I'm aware of a few Japanese drilling companies, but no, it's probably not the go-to country.
As far as ethical business practices and a less corrupt business culture, though, Japan's great. Especially compared to Russia.
My point was really related to your suggestion of hiring a Russian company. They care even less about the environment and worker safety than American companies!
I wouldn't even hire any Americans at all to do it, as the executives and managers are all corrupt and cut corners, and the workers are all on meth (as seen in BP's disaster). Instead, I'd hire a Russian or Norwegian company to do it.
... You're going to go to Russia to avoid corruption?
As far as ethical construction companies with great workers, might I recommend Japan instead?
Google will know which sites it returned to a given search user. If the sites that are selected by the user are using Google Analytics, then Google will also know which sites the user's clicked on. Perhaps they will make this information available to site owners via Analytics?
That actually sounds like a potential future antitrust violation.
And why would they? Enforce copyright law -> send money to Hollywood, don't enforce copyright -> money stays home.
Also, China is a communist nation and even though they have adopted some capitalist ideals they still are a remnant of the Eastern Bloc.
The West needs to remember that China is a communist super power before trying to pressure capitalist ideals onto them, such as copyright enforcement, and expecting them to play along.
Correction, China is a half communist super power. They have two cats.
It seems most of the piracy is taking place in China's free market which is free of undue government regulation and interference. This free market has enabled unprecedented growth in China's capitalist society. Why are you trying to push for big government to interfere with the affairs of private entrepeneurs? Are you a Socialist?
Keep up that attitude, and we'll put it on a Pro-Herpes-Drug ad.
"Herpes. It's what's for dinner."
Yes, I know, way, way too far.
-Taylor
Actually, not too far from the truth. Do a google image search for genital warts. You know all those spam sites that return "The Best ____" where ____ is whatever your search term was? :) Yeah, they're offering the Best Genital Warts, free shipping, etc. Google's improved their algorithms, but there used to be a ton of spam links in the first two pages of results.
Old screenshot: genital warts image results (SFW).
And you accuse the government of not having a clue?
Your position is like saying that the WWII firebombing of Tokyo had no effect because fires occur regularly and buildings burn all the times.
1. This spill would not have happened had the well not been drilled. Period.
2. That oil could have ended up inside the mantle someday, or it could end up engulfed by the sun, but it would not be washing up on the Louisiana shore had it not been drilled. (in case you needed #1 to be reworded)
If oil were naturally leaking all over the world on a regular basis on a scale anywhere near that of this leak, as you claim, the human race would be extinct already. Bacteria eat more than just oil when they "use it for energy"--they use oxygen. There's a reason we call areas with really low O2 concentrations "Dead Zones".
If they actually proceeded knowingly with a broken BOP I don't think additional regulation would have prevented this. That's already criminal.
It's only criminal if they get caught and end up being punished for it. Good regulations generally try to prevent bad things from happening rather than simply punishing the responsible parties after the fact. The evidence is mounting that BP knew damned well the risks they were taking and pushed Trans Ocean to take risks they were uncomfortable with. An onboard inspector could have prevented that.
These extra costs would be reflected in the prices we pay at the pump...
Honestly, the US economy would benefit greatly from consistently seeing more of these costs in the prices paid at the pump.
Just take some more of your drugs and go back to sleep.
I should've known you were just another dimwitted troll.
There are some aspects of the Conservative point of view not shared by Democratic Liberals.
No, most of what you said is actually progressive policy. Let's examine piece-by-piece:
Things like you should pay attention in school and learn the skills that will make you valuable in the job market.
Shared by both, although Texas "Conservatives" feel it's important to rewrite history and indoctrinate youth...
That the government is not responsible for your happiness, success, or anything else other than to make sure you have an equal opportunity to succeed and if you are unable to provide for yourself, then make sure you don't starve or die for lack of medical care.
Actually, that's a progressive view. Conservatives don't necessarily think the government should be responsible for preventing starvation or providing basic medical care for the poor--they say charity should do that.
That the money you make belongs to you, not the government and that government should tax only what it needs, not what it wants in an attempt to create a Utopia that will ultimately and inevitably fail.
Now that it's been a few hours to your post, doesn't the last part of that sentence sound absurd to you? Conservatives are all for taxation, they feel the middle and lower classes should have to pay more in taxes. That's why they're always complaining about the "freeloaders" who don't pay any taxes. It was all over the news around April 15th. Both camps view taxation as legitimate. Democrats favor progressive tax schemes while conservatives generally favor regressive ones.
That schools should teach, not indoctrinate. That if you choose, and can afford it, you can put their children in private schools or even educate yourself without a Teacher's Union representative trying to have you arrested.
See: Texas. I posit that it's impossible to teach without indoctrinating, but I'm curious to see more about the curious case of a parent who was arrested for homeschooling. I'll give conservatives the benefit of the doubt and call this "Shared".
That people who can't afford a home loan really shouldn't be given one.
Right. Progressives agree that people shouldn't be given loans they can't afford, but they generally feel regulations should be in place to ensure that banks won't do it. Conservatives feel that "all regulations are bad" and that banks should be allowed to loan to whomever they want... even if it leads to the banks going bankrupt. And conservatives were behind the initial bail-outs, so don't even try to go there.
So of your "conservative" view points, one was entirely progressive, two are shared by conservatives in theory (but not in practice), and the rest are shared with differing views on implementation strategy.
But there is a big difference. I'd like to think that humanity as a global race has changed and become much more enlightened over the years. This isn't the 1400s anymore, things have changed.
We haven't. The race is the same as it always was, perhaps slightly evolved, but more or less the same. It's society (and our culture) that has evolved. If something really shocks your society, you'll see a good chunk of humans going back to being uncivilized assholes. Take away flooding for a couple days, food, etc., and you'll be amazed how quickly it happens. Hell, a lot of people just need a little alcohol to let loose.
We've realized things through the aid of science and exploration that humans with different beliefs are equally human and that the most prosperous countries are that with a diverse religious population.
You prove my point.
Language and transmission speed hindrances are now nearly gone, I don't have to rely on Marco Polo's journals to tell me what life is like in the far east, I can easily go to a Chinese website, open up Google translate and have a good idea of what its saying in an instant.
If you grew up in a slightly different community, you wouldn't give a damn about what's going on in China. All you'd know is that they're a bunch of infidels who are out to get you. For many people, the world is still black and white.
Things need no longer be exaggerated to help fuel a cause...
Are you familiar with the "Tea Party" in the US?
Alternative: no copyrights. There you go: no government intervention in the free market. Simples. Oh, what was that? You WANT government involved? Well why don't you make up your mind???
Can't we have both? I mean, current copyright law is absurd. Let's just make it 10 or 20 years from the date of creation (or publication)... and require (as I think is somewhat the case now) a copy of all copyrighted works to be sent to the LOC for the copyright to be valid. Government should continue to house as much of the historical and cultural record as possible (they're the only reason we have most of our Civil War photos) and private citizens and organizations can amass their own libraries. It's a win for everyone (except Disney).
First I'll apologize for getting so snarky in my initial reply. I don't usually do that, but I've been busy lately and perhaps quicker to snap at people online than I should be. Re-reading it a couple days later it does come across harsher than I intended. Now back to the discussion.
I personally do not believe you have any understanding of the scientific method. How many peer-reviewed scientific papers have you published? Because I've got over a dozen.
I'm not used to seeing paper count as the e-peen measurement around here, and I have no intention of starting now. I'll concede that even if you're lying and have published zero papers with zero impact, your zero will trump my null answer. I'd also like to assert that you could have so many awards that you use your Nobel as a paperweight. Either way, I'll grant that you may have credibility and go back to trying to figure out what you're arguing.
I think we may be miscommunicating (sic says Mr. Spellcheck), so I'll rephrase my original reply to you.
Again, what you said:
How can you completely prove AGW using the scientific method? You can't stick the earth in a test tube. You cannot perform repeatable experiments with controlled variables. Thus you can only prove sub-components of AGW that may support the *theory* of AGW.
That comes off as an attack on AGW because "the theory cannot be proven". It's a frequent criticism on Slashdot, the blogosphere, and the public in general. I've heard the same arguments against Evolution my whole life, and I tend to react harshly when I hear them.
So I'll ask again. Are you criticizing AGW/Climate Change by saying that it cannot be proven? Do you consider this a flaw in this/these theories, or any other theories? You seem to go on to make the same argument I was originally getting at when you try to school me on theories vs. facts, so I can only hope we were miscommunicating.
What I am referring to is "scientific fact". A scientific fact can be verified with a controlled experiment. As quoted in wikipedia (which obviously should not be taken as factual): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact
Hmph. Now you've got me sounding like the weird one. I'd argue that you prove facts with the empirical rather than scientific method, but I think we're generally in agreement on this point. I should have said you "don't prove theories with the scientific method". Which you obviously agree with, which leads me back to the original complaint...
What are you driving at when you say you can't prove AGW? That complaint is usually followed by "you can't _scientifically prove_ it therefore we shouldn't do anything about it".
The answer is that Google's OpenID implementation is totally jacked up. There's really nothing wrong with OpenID itself, Google just puts more emphasis on making people click the "Sign in with Google" button and couldn't care about following the protocol.
I recommend myOpenID as an OpenID provider. They'll give you a valid URL. OpenID URLs should be in the form of username.example.com or example.com/username
It is not possible to perform controlled experiments:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experiments
You can only perform "natural" or "quasi-experiments".
That's completely irrelevant to my point. You said:
How can you completely prove AGW using the scientific method?
I said:
...please explain to us how we can completely prove anything using the scientific method.
The point is that you CAN'T prove anything with the scientific method because there are no proofs in the scientific method. Really, you're looking in the wrong place if you expect proofs.
When you demand that the scientific method "prove" something, you're just demonstrating that you have no understanding of the method. Sorry, your credibility on the subject is shot until you can demonstrate otherwise.
How can you completely prove AGW using the scientific method? You can't stick the earth in a test tube. You cannot perform repeatable experiments with controlled variables. Thus you can only prove sub-components of AGW that may support the *theory* of AGW.
Since you're so knowledgeable about the scientific method, please explain to us how we can completely prove anything using the scientific method.
Eagerly awaiting your reply.
Speaking only for myself, my skepticism stems from an apparent lack of transparency of the data, evidence of cherry picking data to meet an agenda, a lack of transparency of the algorithms used to massage the data, and the tell-tale vitriol spewed toward anyone who questions the above.
While I agree overall and wish things were more open, it's very important to take that in context. FoIA requests are being used as weapons. Anyone working anywhere near climate science is on the defensive precisely because they have such powerful attacks come in from all directions. It's really no surprise that people are sick of answering the same questions, disproving the same lies, etc.
The only problems I've noticed with the CRU stuff are the same problems I see in every other scientific field: 1) most scientists aren't good programmers and 2) most scientists aren't good statisticians.
There. I said it. Sorry, but the guy who self-taught coding during grad school probably doesn't have the skills needed to consistently and reliably code some of this stuff. Ditto for scientists who don't have at least a BA/BS in math.
You do realize that there is a large population of people who don't support the idea of climate change?
You do realize that there is a large population of people who don't support the idea of evolution?
I really hope Mr. Cuccinelli goes after those fraudster evolutionists next!
And if its not able to stand up against political pressure, those people Will Never be coerced.
This is a combination witch hunt/publicity stunt. This isn't some legitimate investigation and the people investigating Mann will not be allowed to be coerced.
You're misinformed. Bob was just an ordinary asteroid. Here's a picture as proof:
O
No, you wouldn't hear the thud, just the whooshing sound as it flew over your head.
That's ridiculous! There had to have been a first asteroid... and his name was Joe.
All you have to do is go to their website, create an account, enter CD key, download OSX client.
Seriously. I just got done destroying Aiur in the final Zerg mission. Works fine on my MBP.
Do you really, really think that somebody who owns a Hasselblad is going to drop $14k on it just because digital is the new hotness?
Yes. Because a working pro has no use for a kluge like this, they all own modern DSLRs. The only people who will buy this are the people who want to be seen holding a Hassy when they put the Leica down.
Right, because there's no place in professional photography for medium and large format cameras?
DSLRs dominate a good portion of the market, but there are certainly a lot of pros who feel the larger formats have significant benefits.
I think you're confusing the D2X with something else. The Coolpix 5700 is a 5MP prosumer fixed lens camera from 2002. The D2X is the former flagship Nikon dSLR (2005). It has a 12MP, full-frame sensor, etc.
Or maybe I'm just confused?